Husband fed me a food he knows I have never eaten and never willingly will

[Anon39]

I came back from taking our son to training and as I walked back in my husband asked me if I wanted a sausage sandwich I immediately said yes

started eating it and he said do you know what those sausage are? And I replied in the negative and he started to chuckle and said “do you like it?” So my hackles were up I stopped eating and asked for the package of sausage

he started getting defensive and I just knew it was black pudding (which I do not eat and have never eaten and he knows how I feel I have no feelings if you do eat it and that’s not the point of my post)

I found the package and it was black pudding sausage I was so upset he knew I would never have willingly eaten black pudding. I feel so betrayed and I’ve ended up crying and he has basically told me to grow up and stop being so dramatic he can’t understand why I’m so upset

it’s not really about the food it’s about the breaking my trust I would never think to question him about what type of sausage they were because I trusted him

not to drip feed I am Autistic so I am aware I have issues around food

yes you’re being unreasonable and should have checked (after 20 years of marriage)
no - your partner deliberately betrayed your trust

No. I don't have to agree with Rosscameasdoody, do I!? If OP was allergic to it, of course, that would be different (and pretty stupid of DH). Other than that it doesn't much matter. He was just pointing out that she does not dislike black pudding, just the idea of it - the same as I did not like the idea but decided to try and found that I like it. That done I not only eat black pudding but also white pudding. I suppose I mean do not pre-judge things you like to eat without having a go (this only applies to food, btw, some things should never be tried).

Yes. Firstly because it's cruel. Secondly because an aversion can often be the bodies way of warning you that you have an allergy.

I was treated as fussy as child because of my aversion to egg. I've now been diagnosed with a serious egg allergy.

That's what he is doing, though. Pointing out she is prejudiced without reason. With black pudding that is ok, not, of course, with anything he fancies that she does not.

He was just pointing out that she does not dislike black pudding, just the idea of it -

You write that as if it makes it ok!

There are a few things that I don't like the idea of-escargot for example.

I might like it but I'm not interested in finding out & that is entirely up to me.

If you don't understand this is a consent issue there clearly aren't simple enough words in the English language to explain it further.

Based on the OP’s posting history

Is that what we're meant to do now then? Research every OP before we have an opinion?

I would tell them to stop being silly!!!

Its more comparable to feeding a vegan meat

How could you be happy to eat churned up bits of tissue but morally outraged by blood sausage? It's squeamishness/personal taste preference, which isn't the same as strongly held ethical beliefs.

I'm sorry but I think this is uncalled for and not relevant to the thread at all.

If she’s made a conscious decision not to eat black pudding (clearly indicated by the words ‘I would never eat it’ rather than ‘I don’t think I’d like it’) for her own reasons, why does he think he has the right to do this ?

And that gives her partner the absolute right to disrespect her boundaries and feed her black pudding disguised as something else does it ? The OP said she would never eat black pudding. That suggests she has her own strongly held views on it. Which she doesn’t have to explain to anyone in order to have those views respected. Did we not establish a few pages ago, that it’s not the definition of a sausage, but a consent issue ?

How on earth is this relevant?

I’d love to see you try to explain to a Jew, a Muslim or a Jehovah’s Witness why eating blood is no different to eating any other part of the creature. Are they being silly by not eating it because of religious or ethical reasons ? If not, why is the OP being silly - given that we don’t know what her reasons are ? Why are they any less valid ? And why are you assuming a) that the boyfriend did this from altruistic reasons when it’s clear that that wasn’t the case, and b) that she enjoyed it, when she didn’t say anything of the sort.

This is clearly a matter of consent. And the fact that he didn’t ask for that consent before trampling over her right to her own views, frankly makes me wonder what else he doesn’t feel he needs consent for.

Not what I’m saying at all. But you’re entirely predictable in your response to the question. And it was a question - not an assertion that I’m right.

If this happened to me then I would do what the David Walliams character in Little Britain did. The old woman who when she was told about what she had just eaten vomited all over the person who gave it to her.

But why does he need to do so - and to do so by conning her into eating it and then laughing about it? How is it anyone else’s damn business whether the OP will or won’t eat black pudding, or anything else?

He’s not though is he? The OP isn’t a child and she didn’t say she didn’t like black pudding - as has been pointed out by numerous posters, she said she would never eat it, which indicates a deeper reason for avoiding it. Despite knowing that, he fed it to her unknowingly and then laughed at her distress at realising she’d been duped.

There’s a thread on another platform about a husband who wanted sex one night and the OP refused because she was tired. He waited until she was asleep and did it anyway. She’s distressed because she didn’t realise it had happened until she found she was pregnant. When she confronted him he shrugged and laughed, and said he thought she’d enjoy it, so what was the problem. The circumstances may be vastly different and it may seem silly to compare this OP’s issues with that of another who has been raped by her own husband, but the consent issues are the same. In both cases the OPs’ autonomy over their own bodies was taken away.

They are both issues of consent. It's quite incredible that some posters can't see that.

Even more worrying is that some posters think it's perfectly fine for OP's husband to "educate" her , including the use of deception, about giving up her right to eat or not eat what she eants.